Is Ah-Bian Guilty or Not?
- Guilty
- Not Guilty
0 voters
“Guilty” as in “He broke the law and should serve a prison sentence.”
“Not Guilty” as in “He didn’t break any laws and should be a free man.”
Guilty of a vain, petulant, egregious and puerile posturing.
How about a “How the fuck would I know and what kind of hi-skool dropout hillbilly would I have to be to pronounce a man guilty or not-guilty before he has even been charged with a crime let alone gone to trial?”
Just saying, ya know, hannes… 
Wonderful to see all the perveyors of liberalism, democracy and free speech have proclaimed him guilty without trial. Land of the Free.
Cannot vote on something like this…
He’s guilty of having successfully accumulated at least 31 million American dollars. Is there more? Who knows?
A buddy in Taiwan just sent me the recent joke going around:
Angelina Jolie and Shrek and Bill Gates were sitting around unsure of themselves. Jolie wanted to know if she was the fairest of them all, Shrek if he was the strongest of them all and Bill if he was the richest of them all. So they decided to individually consult the magic mirror and meet up again the next afternoon.
The next day, Jolie confirmed the mirror said she was the fairest, Shrek confirmed he was the strongest and Bill?? Well…all he said was “who the fuck is Chen Shui Bien?”
Wasn’t he put in jail for amassing 450K USD or something like that…
In 8 years in government, to take 450K away from the government, means he was getting a free meal for the family a day (that is about 155USD, give it or take it)…
Anyway, even 31M USD is still far away from what Wang took… and we didn’t see the KMT coming out to the streets protesting that he was being “politically persecuted”…
What a stupid poll. How about an option, innocent until proven guilty in a fair, non-politicized trial?
[quote=“ludahai”]How about an option, innocent until proven guilty in a fair, non-politicized trial?[/quote] That’s why I voted not guilty.
[quote]. . . Delphidius . . . exclaimed, “Oh, illustrious Caesar, if it is sufficient to deny, what hereafter will become of the guilty?” to which Julian [the Apostate] replied, “If it suffices to accuse, what will become of the innocent?” Rerum Gestarum, L. XVIII, c. 1.[/quote]–Quoted in Coffin v. United States (1895) (bracketed material added by me) supreme.justia.com/us/156/432/case.html
[quote]And as they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air, [t]he chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him. And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? * * * * Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him.[/quote]–Acts 22:23-29 (KJV) biblegateway.com/passage/?se … version=9;
Agreed. Also the question is very badly worded - what is he guilty of? Sometimes even if someone “deserves” to go to jail the law says otherwise. I think Ma should have gone to jail, but he was let off. If the law says Chen should only be fined then that’s fair.
Exactly. How the fuck would any of us posters on this board know.
So how come many of us seem to know better than others?
There is nothing wrong with the poll question, which could also be rephrased as “Do you think, based on your present knowledge, Chen Shui-bian broke any laws and should serve a prison sentence?”
How hard can it be to answer this simple question. It’s not like voting here has any consequences to the former president or the people taking part in this poll.
I don’t have any criticism of the wording of the poll, because it occurs to me that maybe I’m the one who’s at fault, for interpreting the poll’s wording too formally. If that’s the case, I apologize (no sarcasm).
The words “Guilty” and “Not Guilty” are usually associated in my mind with jury verdicts in criminal proceedings (or a judge’s verdict in the case of a non-jury trial). The standard of proof where I’m from is that, in order for the trier of fact (jury or judge) to return a verdict of guilty, the accused must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of the offense with which he is charged (and only of the offense with which he is charged).
The phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” has been debated over the years, and judicial interpretations of what it means have varied, but at the least, it’s a high standard. Conversely, a verdict of not guilty simply means that in the view of the trier of fact, there is at least a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant is guilty of every element of the offense.
There’s also the principle that “a man shall not be charged with one crime and convicted of another,” a principle that dates at least back to Chief Justice Marshall (Schooner Hoppet and Cargo v. U. S., 1813).
openjurist.org/11/us/389/the-sch … ted-states
So to find a person guilty in that formal sense of the word, why, in many cases it’s a strait gate ya gotta go through (at least in principle). This would seem especially true where someone is charged with financial crimes, and the person being charged is a former head of state who used a secret discretionary (i.e., official slush) fund, and who, or whose wife, transferred campaign funds (I don’t know who was responsible for the transfer or whether the campaign funds belonged to him or not). This case may involve complex, technical, or subtle legal or factual issues.
I add to the mix of my opinion the opinion that some prosecutors seem to have a strong appetite for victory.
Another thing, a mere hint:
[quote=“Thomas De Quincey facetiously”]For if once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination.[/quote] And who knows, maybe from incivility and procrastination to initiating pretextual criminal litigation.
One more thing and I’ll shut up (for now): even if I read the words “guilty” and “not guilty” in their informal sense, I don’t know enough to decide, and I don’t have anything like full confidence in the uprightness of the accusers’ motives, so by default, to me the accused has the same “not guilty” status as anyone else who hasn’t been convicted of a crime.
My point exactly.
Taiwan can be so fucking primitive at times.
They’re all guilty, and you live there :help:
[quote=“Charlie Jack”]I don’t have any criticism of the wording of the poll, because it occurs to me that maybe I’m the one who’s at fault, for interpreting the poll’s wording too formally. If that’s the case, I apologize (no sarcasm).
The words “Guilty” and “Not Guilty” are usually associated in my mind with jury verdicts in criminal proceedings (or a judge’s verdict in the case of a non-jury trial). The standard of proof where I’m from is that, in order for the trier of fact (jury or judge) to return a verdict of guilty, the accused must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of the offense with which he is charged (and only of the offense with which he is charged).
The phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” has been debated over the years, and judicial interpretations of what it means have varied, but at the least, it’s a high standard. Conversely, a verdict of not guilty simply means that in the view of the trier of fact, there is at least a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant is guilty of every element of the offense.
There’s also the principle that “a man shall not be charged with one crime and convicted of another,” a principle that dates at least back to Chief Justice Marshall (Schooner Hoppet and Cargo v. U. S., 1813).
openjurist.org/11/us/389/the-sch … ted-states
So to find a person guilty in that formal sense of the word, why, in many cases it’s a strait gate ya gotta go through (at least in principle). This would seem especially true where someone is charged with financial crimes, and the person being charged is a former head of state who used a secret discretionary (i.e., official slush) fund, and who, or whose wife, transferred campaign funds (I don’t know who was responsible for the transfer or whether the campaign funds belonged to him or not). This case may involve complex, technical, or subtle legal or factual issues.
I add to the mix of my opinion the opinion that some prosecutors seem to have a strong appetite for victory.
Another thing, a mere hint:
[quote=“Thomas De Quincey facetiously”]For if once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination.[/quote] And who knows, maybe from incivility and procrastination to initiating pretextual criminal litigation.
One more thing and I’ll shut up (for now): even if I read the words “guilty” and “not guilty” in their informal sense, I don’t know enough to decide, and I don’t have anything like full confidence in the uprightness of the accusers’ motives, so by default, to me the accused has the same “not guilty” status as anyone else who hasn’t been convicted of a crime.[/quote]
Thanks for the explanation. I didn’t really give much thought to the exact meaning of the word “Guilty”. Just wanted to see how many posters on this board (still) believe the president is innocent (whatever the exact meaning of innocent is 
).
You’re welcome, and thanks for your understanding.
My point exactly.
Taiwan can be so fucking primitive at times.[/quote]
I totally agree, shouldn’t justice be blind? The whole legal system in the country is :fume: